It's not just the war, or the travails of former Congressman Mark Foley, or
any number of other things that political experts and pollsters tell us has
jeopardized Republican control of Congress in the coming election. More than
anything else, it is the perception that Republicans stand for little more
than maintaining power for its own sake.

In former days, Republicans had ideas. They even had an ideology from which
those ideas sprang. They forced the media and liberal Democrats to debate
those ideas and the country was better off for it. Now, in just 12 years of
majority status, they may be about to do what it took Democrats 40 years to
achieve - disgust the public to the point that it wants to clean house (and
possibly the Senate, too).

The problem is Democrats have fewer ideas than Republicans. They, too, crave
power for its own sake and would return to their failed class warfare of the
past, the only warfare they support. They will grow government even more
than Republicans have and they will raise taxes and retreat from engaging
America's enemies, thus encouraging those enemies to come after us with
renewed zeal and an assurance that God is on their side.

Shortly after Republicans won a majority in the 1994 elections, I recall
warning them not to be arrogant. Have your celebrations, I said. Enjoy your
new status, but don't use the gavel as a club. Kindness and grace in
victory, I noted, goes a long way. Because Republicans chose to crow instead
of the harder, but more rewarding path of pursuing consensus, they now
appear about to reap what they have sown. In addition to watching Democrats,
if they are victorious, pursue previously failed policies, Republicans will
also have to put up with endless investigations of the Bush administration,
which can only fuel bitterness and further paralyze government.

If Democrats win one or both houses, they will face the same choices
Republicans had in 1994. They can return fire, like some Middle East
revenge-seeker, perpetuating a cycle that never stops, or they can announce
that America's problems and challenges are too large for one party and work
with Republicans toward common objectives. My guess is Democrats will crow
like the Republicans did and begin to position themselves to grab the White
House in 2008, giving immediate problems a lower priority.

If that is their choice, Republicans may want to try something radically
different, which might not only produce policy successes that benefit the
country, but incidentally pay them political dividends.

Republicans should assemble a bipartisan group of former members of
Congress, such as Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn and Missouri Republican John
Danforth. They would be commissioned to draft a bipartisan team to find
solutions to common problems and challenges, such as a general framework for
when American forces would be committed abroad and for what purposes. The
team could also attack poverty in ways politicians have not, largely because
each side is beholden to its "base," which won't let them stray far from
past practices.

They can start by considering the ideas of this year's Nobel Peace Prize
winner, Muhammad Yunus. Yunus, a Bangladeshi banker, founded and heads
Grameen Bank, which offers "micro-credit" to the very poor. Since 1983, when
the bank was founded, more than half of its borrowers have climbed out of
poverty.

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Yunus expresses a philosophy that
sounds Republican. He offers, "small loans packaged with practical business
and social advice." The Democratic Party philosophy is to give the poor more
government aid. Republicans, when they think of the poor, believe they
should emerge from poverty on their own initiative. With micro-credit, Yunus
says the poor become self-sufficient and acquire dignity because they must
repay the loans. He says nearly 99 percent of the loans are repaid. If Yunus
can make it work in Bangladesh, it should work in America.

Republicans need to try something dramatic that will demonstrate success and
communicate to the public whose interests they actually serve. If they do
lose their majority next month, but learn the greater lesson that power
should be a means to success, not an end in itself, they will not be the
first party or person to learn more from failure than from success.